Safe adoption of robotic colorectal surgery using structured training: early Irish experience

The training pathway for residents: 'Robotic Curriculum for young Surgeons' (RoCS) does not impair patient outcome during implementation into clinical routine

The "Robotic Curriculum for young Surgeons" (RoCS) was launched 03/2020 to address the increasing importance of robotics in surgical training. It aims to provide residents with foundational robotic skills by involving them early in their training. This study evaluated the impact of RoCS' integration into clinical routine on patient outcomes. Two cohorts were compared regarding the implementation of RoCS: Cohort 1 (before RoCS) included all robot-assisted procedures between 2017 and 03/2020 (n = 174 adults) retrospectively; Cohort 2 (after RoCS) included all adults (n = 177) who underwent robotic procedures between 03/2020 and 2021 prospectively. Statistical analysis covered demographics, perioperative parameters, and follow-up data, including mortality and morbidity. Subgroup analysis for both cohorts was organ-related (upper gastrointestinal tract (UGI), colorectal (CR), hepatopancreaticobiliary system (HPB)). Sixteen procedures were excluded due to heterogeneity. In-hospital, 30-, 90-day morbidity and mortality showed no significant differences between both cohorts, including organ-related subgroups. For UGI, no significant intraoperative parameter changes were observed. Surgery duration decreased significantly in CR and HPB procedures (p = 0.018 and p < 0.001). Estimated blood loss significantly decreased for CR operations (p = 0.001). The conversion rate decreased for HPB operations (p = 0.005). Length of hospitalization decreased for CR (p = 0.015) and HPB (p = 0.006) procedures. Oncologic quality, measured by histopathologic R0-resections, showed no significant changes. RoCS can be safely integrated into clinical practice without compromising patient safety or oncologic quality. It serves as an effective training pathway to guide robotic novices through their first steps in robotic surgery, offering promising potential for skill acquisition and career advancement.

Outcome of Colorectal Robotic Surgery in Newly Established Robotic Surgery Center: A Case Series

INTRODUCTION

The robotic platform compared to laparoscopy has proven to have similar postoperative outcomes, however its adoption in the Middle East has been slow and there is limited data regarding outcomes with its use in small newly established robotic colorectal programs. Our aim was to report our experience and outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery performed by fellowship-trained robotic colorectal surgeons and compare them to larger, more experienced centers.

METHODS

This is retrospective review of data collected between November 2021 and March 2023 from a tertiary health care referral center. The series included 51 patients who had elective or urgent robotic colorectal surgery. Patients who had emergency surgery were excluded. The outcomes were overall morbidity, serious morbidity, mortality, conversion to open, length of hospital stay, and quality of oncological specimen.

RESULTS

The overall morbidity was 31.4% (n = 16 patients). Only 9.8% (n = 5) had serious morbidity of which three required interventions under general anesthesia. The median length of hospital stay was 6 days (IQR = 4), and there was no mortality. Of 17 rectal cancer resections, 88% had complete mesorectal excision, 15 of them were R0 resections, median lymph node harvested was 14 (IQR = 7) and two cases were converted to open. All the colon cancer resections had R0 resection, median lymph nodes harvested was 21 (IQR = 4) and none were converted to open.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation and integration of robotic colorectal surgery at a newly established center in a small country, when led by fellowship trained robotic colorectal surgeons, is safe and effective in terms of morbidity, mortality, conversion to open and specimen pathological quality.

Outcomes in robotic-assisted compared to laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery in a newly established colorectal tertiary center: a retrospective comparative cohort study

The robotic platform matches or surpasses laparoscopic surgery in postoperative results. However, limited date and slow adoption are noticed in the middle east. We aimed to report outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic colorectal surgery performed by fellowship-trained robotic colorectal surgeons and compare it to larger more experienced centers. Retrospective review of prospectively collected data between 2021 and 2023 of 107 patients who had robotic-assisted or laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery was included in the study. The outcomes were overall morbidity, serious morbidity, mortality, conversion to open, length of hospital stay, and the quality of oncological specimen. Of 107 patients, 57 were in the robotic and 50 were in the laparoscopic surgery groups. Overall, there were no significant differences in overall morbidity (46.8 vs. 53.2%, p = 0.9), serious morbidity (10.5 vs. 8%, p = 0.7), or mortality (0 vs. 4%, p = 0.2). Regarding oncological outcomes, there were no significant difference between the two groups regarding the number of lymph node harvested (17.7 ± 6.9 vs 19.0 ± 9.7, p = 0.5), R0 resections (92.7 vs. 87.1%, p = 0.5), and the rate of complete mesorectal excision (92.7 vs. 71.4%, p = 0.19). The study found that the robotic group had an 86% reduction in conversion rate to open surgery compared to the laparoscopic group, despite including more obese and physically dependent patients (OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.7, p = 0.01). Robotic surgery appears to be a safe and effective as laparoscopic surgery in smaller colorectal surgery programs led by fellowship-trained robotic surgeons, with outcomes comparable to those of larger programs.

Implementation of a robotic surgical practice in inflammatory bowel disease

Robotics adoption has increased in colorectal surgery. While there are well-established advantages and standardised techniques for cancer patients, the use of robotic surgery in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has not been studied yet. To evaluate the feasibility and safety of robotic surgery for IBD patients. Prospectively data in IBD patients having robotic resection at Guy's and St Thomas' hospital. All resections performed by a single colorectal surgeon specialised in IBD, utilising DaVinci platform. July 2021 to January 2023, 59 robotic IBD cases performed, 14 ulcerative colitis (UC) and 45 Crohn's disease (CD). Average age; CD patients 35, UC 33 years. Average Body mass index (BMI); 23 for CD and 26.9 for UC patients. In total, we performed 31 ileo-caecal resections (ICR) with primary anastomosis (18 Kono-S anastomosis, 6 mechanical anastomosis and 7 ileo-colostomy), of those 4 had multivisceral resections (large bowel, bladder, ovary). Furthermore, 14 subtotal colectomy (1 emergency), 8 proctectomy, 3 panproctocolectomy and 3 ileoanal J pouch. 18 of the 45 patients (45.0%) with Crohn's disease had ongoing fistulating disease to other parts of the GI tract (small or large bowel). ICR were performed using different three ports position, depending on the anatomy established prior to surgery with magnetic resonance images (MRI). One patient had conversion to open due to anaesthetic problems and one patient required re-operation to refashion stoma. 98.0% cases completed robotically. Median Length of hospital stay (LOS) was 7 days for CD and 7 for UC cases, including LOS in patients on pre-operative parenteral nutrition. Robotic colorectal techniques can be safely used for patients with IBD, even with fistulating disease. Future research and collaborations are necessary to standardize technique within institutions.

The current status of robotic colorectal surgery training programmes

Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) is steadily increasing in popularity with an annual growth in the number of colorectal procedures undertaken robotically. Further upscaling of RACS requires structured and standardised robotic training to safeguard high-quality clinical outcomes. The aims of this systematic review were to assess the structure and assessment metrics of currently established RACS training programmes. A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines was performed. Searches were performed of the Ovid Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases between 2000 and 27th November 2021 to identify studies reporting on training curricula in RACS. Core components of training programmes and their relevant outcome assessment metrics were extracted. Thirteen studies were identified, with all training programmes designed for the da Vinci platform (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Common elements of multimodal programmes included theoretical knowledge (76.9%), case observation (53.8%), simulation (100%) and proctored training (76.9%). Robotic skills acquisition was assessed primarily during the simulation phase (n = 4, 30.1%) and proctoring phase (n = 10, 76.9%). Performance metrics, consisting of time or assessment scores for VR simulation were only mandated in four (30.1%) studies. Objective assessment following proctored training was variably reported and employed a range of assessment metrics, including direct feedback (n = 3, 23.1%) or video feedback (n = 8, 61.5%). Five (38.4%) training programmes used the Global Assessment Score (GAS) forms. There is a broad consensus on the core multimodal components across current RACS training programmes; however, validated objective assessment is limited and needs to be appropriately standardised to ensure reproducible progression criteria and competency-based metrics are produced to robustly assess progression and competence.

Parallel, component training in robotic total mesorectal excision

There has been widespread adoption of robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer in recent years. There is now increasing interest in training robotic novice surgeons in robotic TME surgery using the principles of component-based learning. The aims of our study were to assess the feasibility of delivering a structured, parallel, component-based, training curriculum to surgical trainees and fellows. A prospective pilot study was undertaken between January 2021 and May 2021. A dedicated robotic training pathway was designed with two trainees trained in parallel per each robotic case based on prior experience, training grade and skill set. Component parts of each operation were allocated by the robotic trainer prior to the start of each case. Robotic proficiency was assessed using the Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) and the EARCS Global Assessment Score (GAS). Three trainees participated in this pilot study, performing a combined number of 52 TME resections. Key components of all 52 TME operations were performed by the trainees. GEARS scores improved throughout the study, with a mean overall baseline score of 17.3 (95% CI 15.1-1.4) compared to an overall final assessment mean score of 23.8 (95% CI 21.6-25.9), p = 0.003. The GAS component improved incrementally for all trainees at each candidate assessment (p < 0.001). Employing a parallel, component-based approach to training in robotic TME surgery is safe and feasible and can be used to train multiple trainees of differing grades simultaneously, whilst maintaining high-quality clinical outcomes.

A systematic review of robotic surgery curricula using a contemporary educational framework

BACKGROUND

There has been a rising trend in robotic surgery. Thus, there is demand for a robotic surgery curriculum (RSC) for training surgical trainees and practicing surgeons. There are limited data available about current curricular designs and the extent to which they have incorporated educational frameworks. Our aim was to study the existing robotic surgery curricula using Kern's 6-step approach in curriculum development.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, PubMed Central, Cochrane, Embase, and Scopus (we searched studies from 2001 to 2021). PRISMA Guidelines was used to guide the search. Curriculum designed for general surgery and its subspecialties were included. Urology and gynecology were excluded. The articles were reviewed by five reviewers.

RESULTS

Our review yielded 71 articles, including 39 curricula at 9 different settings. Using Kern's framework, we demonstrated that the majority of robotic surgery curricula contained all the elements of Kern's curricular design. However, there were significant deficiencies in important aspects of these curricula i.e., implementation, the quality of assessment tools for measurement of performance and evaluation of the educational value of these interventions. Most institutions used commercial virtual reality simulators (VRS) as the main component of their RSC and 23% of curricula only used VRS.

CONCLUSIONS

Although majority of these studies contained all the elements of Kern's framework, there are critical deficiencies in the components of existing curricula. Future curricula should be designed using established educational frameworks to improve the quality of robotic surgery training.

RoCS: Robotic Curriculum for young Surgeons

Robotic-assisted procedures gain increasing acceptance for daily surgical routine. However, structured training programs are designed for surgeons with high expertise. Hence, a comprehensive training curriculum was established to ensure a basic competence in robotic abdominal surgery for young surgeons during their residency. The aim of the current work is to propose a feasible and effective training concept. The development process of this training curriculum is based on a comprehensive literature review which led to the concept of "robotic curriculum for young surgeons" (RoCS). It was implemented in the daily routine of a German university hospital starting in 2020. The robotic assessment questionnaire (RAQ) was used for electronic data collection. After the initial phase adjustments, it led to an improvement of the initial version of the curriculum. RoCS is a multimodal training program containing basic training through assistance at the operation table during robotic-assisted operations and basic console training. Key elements are the robotic team time-out (rTTO), perioperative process standardization including feasible personnel scheduling and useful procedure clustering into organ systems, procedural steps and procedural step complexity. Evaluation of standardized communication, performance assessment, patient factors and individual overall workload using NASA Task Load Index is realizable. Flexibility and adaptability to internal organization processes of surgical departments are the main advantages of the concept. RoCS is a strong training tool to meet the specific needs of young surgeons and evaluate their learning success of robotic procedural training. Furthermore, comparison within the different robotic systems should be considered. Further studies are needed to validate a multicenter concept design.

No beneficial effect on survival but a decrease in postoperative complications in patients with rectal cancer undergoing robotic surgery: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Robotic surgery has been taken as a new modality to surpass the technical limitations of conventional surgery. Here we aim to compare the oncologic outcomes of patients with rectal cancer receiving robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

Data from patients diagnosed with rectal cancer between March 2011 and December 2018 were obtained for outcome assessment at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University. All patients were separated into two groups: a robot group (patients receiving robotic surgery, n = 314) and a laparoscopy group (patients receiving laparoscopic surgery, n = 220). The primary endpoint was survival outcomes. The secondary endpoints were the general conditions of the operation, postoperative complications and pathological characteristics.

Results

The 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at years 1, 3 and 5 were 96.6%, 88.7%, and 87.7% vs. 96.7%, 88.1%, and 78.4%, and 98.6%, 80.2-, and 73.5% vs. 96.2-, 87.2-, and 81.1% in the robot and laparoscopy groups, respectively (P > 0.05). In the multivariable-adjusted analysis, robotic surgery was not an independent prognostic factor for OS and DFS (P = 0.925 and 0.451, respectively). With respect to the general conditions of the operation, patients in the robot group had significantly shorter operation times (163.5 ± 40.9 vs. 190.5 ± 51.9 min), shorter times to 1^st gas passing [2(1) vs. 3(1)d] and shorter hospital stay days [7(2) vs. 8(3)d] compared to those in the laparoscopy group (P < 0.01, respectively). After the operation, the incidence of short- and long-term complications in the robot group was significantly lower than that in the laparoscopy group (15.9% vs. 32.3%; P < 0.001), especially for urinary retention (1.9% vs. 7.3%; 0.6% vs. 4.1%, P < 0.05, respectively). With regard to pathological characteristics, TNM stages II and III were more frequently observed in the robot group than in the laparoscopy group (94.3% vs. 83.2%, P < 0.001). No significant difference were observed in lymph nodes retrieved, lymphovascular invasion and circumferential resection margin involvement between the two groups (P > 0.05, respectively).

Conclusions

This monocentre retrospective comparative cohort study revealed short-term advantages of robot-assisted rectal cancer resection but similar survival compared to conventional laparoscopy.

Teaching and Training Surgeons in Robotic Colorectal Surgery

Robotic surgery is becoming more popular among practicing physicians as a new modality with improved visualization and mobility (1-2). As patients also desire minimally invasive procedures with quicker recoveries, there is a desire for new surgical residents and fellows to pursue robotic techniques in training (3-4). To develop a new colorectal robotics training program, an institution needs a well-formulated plan for the trainees and mentors with realistic expectations. The development of a robotics training program has potential obstacles, including increased initial cost, longer operative times, and overcoming learning curves. We have devised a four-phase training protocol for residents in colorectal surgical fellowship. Each of these phases attempts to create a curricular framework that outlines logical progression and sets expectations for trainees, Program Directors, and residency faculty. Phase zero begins prior to fellowship and is preparatory. Phase one focuses on an introduction to robotics with learning bedside console troubleshooting and simulation exercises. Phase Two prioritizes operative experience and safety while completing steps independently in a progressive fashion. Phase Three polishes the resident prior to graduation for future practice. We recommend frequent evaluation and open-mindedness while establishing a focused robotics program. The end goal is to graduate fellows with an equivalency certificate who can continue to practice colorectal robotic surgery.

Three-dimensional visualization improves the endoscopic diagnosis of superficial gastric neoplasia

BACKGROUND

Three-dimensional (3D) technology has been used in many fields, including flexible endoscopy. We evaluated the usefulness of 3D visualization for endoscopically diagnosing superficial gastric neoplasia.

METHODS

Twelve participants (4 novices, 4 trainees and 4 experts) evaluated two-dimensional (2D) and 3D endoscopic still images of 28 gastric neoplasias, obtained before ESD with white-light imaging (WLI) and narrow-band imaging (NBI). Assessments of the delineation accuracy of tumor extent and tumor morphology under 2D and 3D visualization were based on the histopathological diagnosis of ESD specimens. Participants answered visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaires (0-10, worst to best) concerning the (a) ease of recognition of lesion morphology, (b) lesion extent and (c) comprehensive endoscopic cognition under 2D and 3D visualization. The endpoints were the accuracy of tumor extent and morphology type and the degree of confidence in assessing (a)-(c).

RESULTS

The delineation accuracy of lesion extent [mean (95% confidence interval)] with WLI under 3D visualization [60.2% (56.1-64.3%)] was significantly higher than that under 2D visualization [52.3% (48.2-56.4%)] (P < 0.001). The accuracy with NBI under 3D visualization [70.3% (66.8-73.7%)] was also significantly higher than that under 2D visualization [64.2% (60.7-67.4%)] (P < 0.001). The accuracy of the morphology type with NBI under 3D visualization was significantly higher than that under 2D visualization (P = 0.004). The VAS for all aspects of endoscopic recognition under 3D visualization was significantly better than that under 2D visualization (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Three-dimensional visualization can enhance the diagnostic quality for superficial gastric tumors.

Robotic versus laparoscopic anterior resections for rectal and rectosigmoid cancer: an institutional experience

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal surgery has evolved with the advent of laparoscopic techniques and now robotic-assisted surgery. There is significant literature supporting the use of laparoscopic techniques over open surgery with evidence of enhanced post-operative recovery, reduced use of opioids, smaller incisions and equivalent oncological outcomes. Robotic minimally invasive surgery addresses some of the limitations of laparoscopic surgery, providing surgical precision and improvements in perception and dexterity with a resulting decrease in tissue damage.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent robotic-assisted anterior resection for cancer of the rectum or rectosigmoid junction in our institution since our robotic programme began in 2017. Patient demographics were identified via electronic databases and patient charts. A matched cohort of laparoscopic cases was identified.

RESULTS

A total of 51 consecutive robotic-assisted anterior resections were identified and case matched with laparoscopic resections for comparison. Robotic-assisted surgery was associated with a shorter length of stay (p = 0.04), reduced initial post-operative analgesia requirements (p < 0.01) and no significant difference in time to bowel movement or stoma functioning (p = 0.84). All patients had an R0 resection, and there was no statistical difference in lymph node yield between the groups (p = 0.14). Robotic surgery was associated with a longer operative duration (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this early experience, robotic surgery has proven feasible and safe and is comparable to laparoscopic surgery in terms of completeness of resection and recovery. As costs and operating times decline and as technology progresses, robotic surgery may one day replace traditional laparoscopic techniques.

Training for Minimally Invasive Surgery for IBD: A Current Need

Surgery for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) management has passed through an important evolution over the last decades, with innovative strategies and new technologies, especially in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches. MIS procedures for IBD include multiport laparoscopy, single-port surgery, robotics, and the use of transanal platforms. These approaches can be used in the surgical management of both Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). There are significant peculiarities in the surgical field in CD and UC, and their perfect understanding are directly related to better outcomes in IBD patients, as a consequence of improvement in knowledge by IBD surgeons. Different strategies to train colorectal surgeons were developed worldwide, for better application of MIS, usually for malignant or non-IBD benign diseases. There is a significant lack of evidence in specific training strategies for MIS in the IBD field. In this review, the authors outline the importance of adequate surgical training in IBD MIS, by discussing the current evidence on different approaches and emphasizing the need for better training protocols included in multidisciplinary teams in IBD centers throughout the globe.

Surgical Complexity and Outcome During the Implementation Phase of a Robotic Colorectal Surgery Program-A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Robotic surgery holds particular promise for complex oncologic colorectal resections, as it can overcome many limitations of the laparoscopic approach. However, similar to the situation in laparoscopic surgery, appropriate case selection (simple vs. complex) with respect to the actual robotic expertise of the team may be a critical determinant of outcome. The present study aimed to analyze the clinical outcome after robotic colorectal surgery over time based on the complexity of the surgical procedure.

Methods

All robotic colorectal resections (n = 85) performed at the Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, between the beginning of the program in April 2015 until December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. To compare surgical outcome over time, the cohort was divided into 2 time periods based on case sequence (period 1: patients 1–43, period 2: patients 44–85). Cases were assigned a complexity level (I-IV) according to the type of resection, severity of disease, sex and body mass index (BMI). Postoperative complications were classified using the Clavien-Dindo classification.

Results

In total, 47 rectal resections (55.3%), 22 partial colectomies (25.8%), 14 abdomino-perineal resections (16.5%) and 2 proctocolectomies (2.4%) were performed. Of these, 69.4% (n = 59) were oncologic cases. The overall rate of major complications (Clavien Dindo III-V) was 16.5%. Complex cases (complexity levels III and IV) were more often followed by major complications than cases with a low to medium complexity level (I and II; 25.0 vs. 5.4%, p = 0.016). Furthermore, the rate of major complications decreased over time from 25.6% (period 1) to 7.1% (period 2, p = 0.038). Of note, the drop in major complications was associated with a learning effect, which was particularly pronounced in complex cases as well as a reduction of case complexity from 67.5% to 45.2% in the second period (p = 0.039).

Conclusions

The risk of major complications after robotic colorectal surgery increases significantly with escalating case complexity (levels III and IV), particularly during the initial phase of a new colorectal robotic surgery program. Before robotic proficiency has been achieved, it is therefore advisable to limit robotic colorectal resection to cases with complexity levels I and II in order to keep major complication rates at a minimum.

Effective implementation and adaptation of structured robotic colorectal programme in a busy tertiary unit

BACKGROUND

Safety and feasibility of robotic colorectal surgery has been reported as increasing over the last decade. However safe implementation and adaptation of such a programme with comparable morbidities and acceptable oncological outcomes remains a challenge in a busy tertiary unit. We present our experience of implementation and adaptation of a structured robotic colorectal programme in a high-volume center in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

Two colorectal surgeons underwent a structured robotic colorectal training programme consisting of time on simulation console, dry and wet laboratory courses, case observation, and initial mentoring. Data were collected on consecutive robotic colorectal cancer resections over a period of 12 months and compared with colorectal cancer resections data of the same surgeons' record prior to the adaptation of the new technique. Patient demographics including age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologist score (ASA), Clavien-Dindo grading, previous abdominal surgeries, and BMI were included. Short-term outcomes including conversion to open, length of stay, return to theatre, 30- and 90-days mortality, blood loss, and post-operative analgesia were recorded. Tumour site, TNM staging, diverting stoma, neo-adjuvant therapy, total mesorectal excision (TME) grading and positive resection margins (R1) were compared. p values less than or equal to 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Ninety colorectal cancer resections were performed with curative intent from June 2018 to June 2020. Thirty robotic colorectal cancer resections (RCcR) were performed after adaption of programme and were compared with 60 non-robotic colorectal cancer resections (N-RCcR) prior to implementation of technique. There was no conversion in the RCcR group; however, in N-RCcR group, five had open resection from start and the rest had laparoscopic surgery. In laparoscopic group, there were six (10.9%) conversions to open (two adhesions, three multi-visceral involvements, one intra-operative bleed). Male-to-female ratio was 20:09 in RCcR group and 33:20 in N-RCcR groups. No significant differences in gender (p = 0.5), median age (p = 0.47), BMI (p = 0.64) and ASA scores (p = 0.72) were present in either groups. Patient characteristics between the two groups were comparable aside from an increased proportion of rectal and sigmoid cancers in RCcR group. Mean operating time, and returns to theaters were comparable in both groups. Complications were fewer in RCcR group as compared to N-RCcR (16.6% vs 25%). RCcR group patients have reduced length of stay (5 days vs 7 days) but this is not statistically significant. Estimated blood loss and conversion to open surgery was significantly lesser in the robotic group (p < 0.01). The oncological outcomes from surgery including TNM, resection margin status, lymph node yield and circumferential resection margin (for rectal cancers) were all comparable. There was no 30-day mortality in either group.

CONCLUSION

Implementation and integration of robotic colorectal surgery is safe and effective in a busy tertiary center through a structured training programme with comparable short-term survival and oncological outcomes during learning curve.

European Society of Coloproctology Colorectal Robotic Surgery Training for the Trainers Course - the first pilot experience

AIM

Currently, there is no established colorectal specific robotic surgery Train the Trainer (TTT) course. The aim was to develop and evaluate such a course which can then be further developed to be incorporated within the planned European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP)/European School of Coloproctology (ESC) robotic colorectal surgery training curriculum.

METHOD

After identifying the need for such a course within a training programme, the course was developed by a subgroup of the ESCP/ESC. A scoping literature review was performed and the content and materials for the course were developed by a team consisting of two gastroenterologists with a combined experience of 30 years of facilitating TTT courses, a robotic surgeon and proctor with laparoscopic TTT faculty experience and experienced robotic and laparoscopic colorectal trainers. The course was evaluated by asking delegates to complete pre- and post-course questionnaires.

RESULTS

There were eight delegates on the course from across Europe. Delegates increased their knowledge of each of the course learning objectives and identified learning points in order to change practice. The feedback from the delegates of the course was positive across several areas and all felt that they had achieved their own personal objectives in attending the course.

CONCLUSION

This pilot robotic colorectal TTT course has achieved its aim and demonstrated many positives. There is a need for such a course and the evaluation processes have provided opportunities for reflection, which will allow the development/tailoring of future robotic colorectal TTT courses to help develop robotic training further.

Educational note: teaching and training in robotic surgery. An opinion of the Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery Committee of the Brazilian College of Surgeons

ABSTRACT With the expansion of robotic surgical procedures, the acquisition of specific knowledge and skills for surgeons to reach proficiency seems essential before performing surgical procedures on humans. In this sense, the authors present a proposal to establish a certification based on objective and validated criteria for carrying out robotic procedures. A study was carried out by the Committee on Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery of the Brazilian College of Surgeons based on a reviewing strategy of the scientific literature. The study serves as a reference for the creation of a standard for the qualification and certification in robotic surgery according to a statement of the Brazilian Medical Association (AMB) announced on December 17, 2019. The standard proposes a minimum curriculum, integrating training and performance evaluation. The initial (pre-clinical) stage aims at knowledge and adaptation to a specific robotic platform and the development of psychomotor skills based on surgical simulation. Afterwards, the surgeon must accompany in person at least five surgeries in the specialty, participate as a bedside assistant in at least 10 cases and perform 10 surgeries under the supervision of a preceptor surgeon. The surgeon who completes all the steps will be considered qualified in robotic surgery in his specialty. The final certification must be issued by the specialty societies affiliated to AMB. The authors conclude that the creation of a norm for habilitation in robotic surgery should encourage Brazilian hospitals to apply objective qualification criteria for this type of procedure to qualify assistance.

Metal substitutions incarbonic anhydrase: a halide ion probe study

The ASA score is known to be an independent predictor of complications and mortality following colorectal surgery. We evaluated early outcome in the initiation phase of a robotic oncological colorectal resection program in dependence of comorbidity and learning curve. 43 consecutive colorectal cancer patients (median age: 74 years) who underwent robotic surgery were firstly analysed defined by physical status (group A = ASA1 + 2; group B = ASA3). Secondly, outcome was evaluated relating to surgery date (group E: early phase; group L: late phase). There were no differences among groups A and B with regard to gender, BMI, skin-to-skin operative times (STS), N- and M-status, hospital-stay as well as overall rate of complications according to Dindo-Clavien and no one-year mortality. GroupA when compared to group B demonstrated significantly lower mean age (65.5 years ± 11.4 years vs 75.8 years  ± 8.9 years), T-stage and ICU-stay. When separately analyzed for patients age ICU-stay was comparable (> 75 years vs. < 75 years). Group E and L demonstrated comparable characteristics and early outcome except more frequent lymphatic fistulas in group E. STS was reduced in group L compared to group E. Beyond learning curve aspects in our series, we could demonstrate that patient’s physical condition according to ASA rather than age may have an impact on early outcome in the initial phase of a robotic oncological colorectal program.